Sorry, I forgot to remark on this before: ~ You know what, time to end this. Let me clear up the negative trust so you won't complain about it anymore. Done. Now the burden of substantiation on each of us is identical. Of course, you thus trolled me into checking his trust page. I see what you did there. It has an elegant symmetry—it is justifiable in the totality of the circumstance—and he can’t even complain about it without showing his usual rank hypocrisy. Of course, that last means that he will whine about it incessantly.
Nullius - myself and a couple others have substantiated the claims against Techy. The proof is in the reference link. I know! Of course, I read your reference link before I supported your tag; and I read others’ reference links, too. Nothing that I have said indicates even in the slightest that I can’t answer him. The gravamen of my reply was that I am not called to answer by the likes of TECSHARE. I made a tag based severally* on other tags, including yours—each of which is well-supported, and speaks for itself. I will not waste my time arguing with a troll on endless forum threads about this. He is beneath reply. Case closed. Direct complaints to /dev/null, and DNFTT. Vod, I am guessing that you probably remember Usenet, yes? I cut my teeth on anti-abuse groups on Usenet (and, as suchmoon didn’t notice, I then sharpened them dealing with the slippery twists of actual lawyers in actual courtrooms). TECSHARE is nothing. (* To emphasize, for those who may not understand the technical meaning of that word: “Severally” means that my tag is good if either or both of Vod’s and Lauda’s respective tags is good. Thus, somebody who trusts with the judgment of the maker of at least one of those tags cannot logically distrust my judgment over my support thereof.)Techy chooses to either ignore or claim he does not understand. He does not have anyone who wants to help him. I don't think you will convince him of anything. And that is why I ignore him! DNFTT. OK, yawn. For my part, if I were in your position, I wouldn’t want any “supporters” who lack the self-confidence to either ignore TECSHARE—or tell TECSHARE to go fork himself, and then ignore him. That would even be a useful filter on flushing out false friends—although it is a weak filter, for this is not even a matter of courage! LOL, seriously: TECSHARE is a troll on an Internet forum. That’s it. Anybody who cannot stand up to him is completely useless. So, what is he going to do, whine you to death? He certainly tries. Manipulate the trust system and then use it against you? Indeed, Vod, that is why I supported and continue to support your negative feedback for his trust-system abuse! But I react to that with the relative unconcern of pessimism; for when I returned to the forum, it took me all of three days to predict the long-term catastrophic failure of the new, “democratic DT” (my own term, BTW, which I am thrilled to see Lauda seems to have taken up :-): Maybe Theymos can think of some better idea to stop and prevent 'more abuse dt wars'
It's not fun at all. Well, I infer that was his purpose in neutering the effect of feedback, and essentially democratizing DT in a convoluted way. My prediction as to the latter is that it will destroy the trust system. In the long term, it will put DT under control of those who optimize for gaining control of DT by any means necessary, and devote unbounded time and effort to doing so. That is a bad criterion. As for cleaning up these sordid threads, it will backfire and will escalate, not quash the perpetual DT wars: Demagogues, agitprop, and “negative campaign ads” thrive in such a system. Underlined: Perfect for TECSHARE! But I was expecting it— this, I was expecting in the long term. The following was neither sour grapes nor mere idle talk, whereas I had spent the previous few weeks thinking about my own above-quoted prediction and the problem of “democratic DT”: Since my life is too valuable to waste on flamewars with no objective other than “arguing on the Internet”, the worst that can happen (the worst—from your [suchmoon’s] perspective) is that I decide that the DT system is broken by design, I mostly withdraw from Reputation in favour of more productive tasks, and meanwhile, I think about perhaps some long-term way to make the forum trust system obsolete. “Cypherpunks write code.” But that was addressed to suchmoon, who is the real problem on this thread. I know how you feel about that, Vod; and I do not want to downtalk your friend to you. Please do understand that I must be forthright; and when the first eight pages of this thread are viewed objectively, it is clear that I have cause to say what I have said, and to say more of it. Speaking thereof, I half-drafted a reply to suchmoon’s latest snarky one-liner. I will finish it and post it later. For now, as a priority, I am replying at some length to make it unequivocally clear to you, Vod, that (1) I refrain from replying to TECSHARE’s drivel because it is drivel, not for any lack of confidence in tags that, as you will note, I am still firmly supporting; and, (2) I am unimpressed at TECSHARE’s attempt to coerce your supporters. Some of the names on his hate-list look mighty tough to me. I doubt that they will throw you under the bus to appease TECSHARE, of all creatures (!); and if they do, I hope that others will step up to support you.*
* It seems apropos to remark that, as I have stated somewhere in other threads, my own inclusions list is extremely picky. How picky? I do not include theymos—that’s how picky.
Vod was one of the obvious choices for a shortlist of candidates for inclusion. After whittling the names down, I left him off my trust list for relatively trivial reasons of my own, irrelevant to TECSHARE’s criticisms of him. I will not say what, because I don’t want to give TECSHARE any ammo. I reconsider such things from time to time, anyway. |
|
|
|
[Stop fully-quoting posts like a n00b, when I have never shown any propensity to improperly edit or delete posts after people argue with them, and archives exist in case I do. — nullius] We are all aware you can make accusations. That is not under dispute. Would you substantiate any of your claims against me when you get a break from lecturing people and writing huge pointless screeds? I would have flatly ignored your thread against me, if suchmoon had not backed you.* I have ignored almost all of your posts here in the thread you thus started, plus everywhere else on the forum—and I will continue to do so. Enough of an answer?
* And I have more to say about that, but no more free time to squander on this thread today. |
|
|
|
I buy the best of Kazakhstan's exports - including potassium More Better Bestest Exports from Kazakhstan!That is a formidable list, though I think that Uzbekistan’s exports are competitive.
superiority, sir?
you are a bitch for calling me sir, you are prime example of someone who needs my services. - Your bank promises you courteous customer service while it pretends to safekeep your pretend-money. It then treats you like dirt (unless you have €normou$ a¢¢ount$, in which case its representatives will kneel and offer to fellate you).
- TMAN promises to abuse you while you pay him, and you will like it. Meanwhile, he will provide “best services” to you.
Banks: 0; TMAN: 1. Round 1:- Banks: Use government-printed toilet paper.
- TMAN: Uses Bitcoin.
Banks: −∞; TMAN: 21 million! Winner: TMAN in one round. (Well, in round[1] as counted by a C coder.)
@nullius denied - you not need services, your tongue gets you all the snatch you need Snatch me: Snatch services me, snatch gets all the “tongue” it needs. But my cunning wordplay is a bigger mystery, deep and hard to know. Be not #reckless of such things; for though I may steal your soul for Bitcoin, I will keep your body all to myself. Thus beware, ladies, that my tongue inflicts gracious bawdily charm: My fun puns and humourous ejaculations will leave my mark in you. And if you’re feeling an itch to work in a tight market, if you want to work it for TMAN’s Services, then I can train you! Of course, I mean that I can tutor you in cryptography (a word not so dissimilar to πoρνography). No more elliptical talk: Let’s get hands-on with those curves, and you may get TMAN’s attention. That harem technical team has standards: You’ve got to be like the best cryptographress in Kazakhstan! |
|
|
|
Notice: This post is intended to be a stable reference link for impending trust feedback. (N.b. for the record, I supported Lauda’s active flag against xolxol a few weeks ago. That is not new.)http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5378/53785935.htmlNullius go back to your old ways I take exception to this: When was I ever not a sort of extremist version of the quite moderate Lauda? (Sorry, Lauda: Presumptuously boasting that I out-you you is even more-sincerest than mere imitation.)and dont give time to support abusers here because youll be hated by most of the users,dont caress their dicks LOLWUT. When did I ever show even the slightest indication of caring what is thought of me by xolxol, the Trusted Official Spokesman of Most Of The Users, who has achieved a fame sung by bards and poets with such behaviour as displayed below. (That sentence is ended with a period, not a question mark, because it is declarative and rhetorical, not a question; and I am not inviting an answer.)https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4905217.msg44420927#msg44420927Subject: Re: Shit eaters Lauda and Pharmacist- Ban need to executed on these people I wish i could have known where this dickhead is living so that i could hire someone to put him down or atleast break his arms and legs ive got a couple of spare BTCs.
|
|
|
|
Edit: By the will of Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I pointed to this in Post #222 on this thread!
Bitcoin smiled; whereupon Manish ( archive), uid 1107 844, rolled a lucky 444 with his Hindi translation of Project Anastasia: I think I should wait for somebody else to break that, before I myself do justice to this important message: बिटकॉइन के गुमनाम संस्थापक की पहचान भी एक ढोंगी,बहरूपिये ने चुराने की कोशिश करी है
क्रेग राइट भी एक बहरूपिया, पहचान चुराने वाला identity thief है.
|
|
|
|
धन्यवाद, amishmanish! India now exposes the essential nature of Craig Wright’s scam in the Hindi language: बिटकॉइन के गुमनाम संस्थापक की पहचान भी एक ढोंगी,बहरूपिये ने चुराने की कोशिश करी है
क्रेग राइट भी एक बहरूपिया, पहचान चुराने वाला identity thief है. English, Russian, Romanian, Hindi... Soon, all the world will know Anastasia’s message about Wright’s wrongs against Satoshi! |
|
|
|
Announcement: Project Anastasia now brings us from Romania the correct identification that “Craig Wright este un hoț de identitate”. Mulțumesc, GazetaBitcoin, for your defence of “ Bitcoin: Fenomenul social” against Craig Wright’s lies! English, Russian, and now Romanian... Soon enough, the whole world shall know that Craig Wright is committing grand-scale identity theft.
This whole thing just gets more and more stupid as time goes on. Honestly, who still believes this nonsense?
The doubling down is polarizing. If you thought wright wasn't satoshi it makes you more sure of it, if you thought he was it also makes you more sure of it. For a scammer this is a great move: The people who are eligible victims become more vulnerable from their increased belief and the non-victims get further away and less likely to disrupt the scam.Indeed: And this only yet again underscores the error that I and many others made by ignoring Wright for years, trying to starve him of attention. The bolded portion is the reaction of “Too Stupid, Didn’t Respond” (with apologies to o_e_l_e_o, who is not making that mistake here). The answer is a tightly focused counterattack that rises from a positive desire to make the world a better place, cuts the spew of lies off at the threshold, and focuses on one simple point that everybody can understand: Identity theft. That is the real issue here; and we must not let Wright perpetually reframe and divert the public presentation with antics that do exactly what you say. People should neither ignore Wright, nor wildly lash out at him: Keep focus, keep the high ground, and keep hitting the key points, repeatedly, in every single discussion so that he cannot get away with these cheap psychological ploys.
The TL;DR too stupid; didn't read is that he has now claimed that the bonded courier who is delivering the private keys to Satoshi's addresses is an attorney, and so all communication from said courier is "privileged", and therefore he does not have to submit it to the court. He is also claiming thousands of documents from a bunch of bankrupt or liquidated companies he was involved in are also "privileged", and so can effectively ignore the court order for these documents. You can read the plaintiff's response as to why this is complete nonsense here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/389/kleiman-v-wright/. Although I am not an attorney, much less an American attorney admitted to Federal practice in S.D. Florida, I know of nothing in F.R.E. or the law that would allow an attorney to argue something tantamount to letting a client claim unlimited privilege on discoverable evidence, simply by the artifice of hiding it in an “attorney-client communication”. Of course, such things have been litigated in the past. Does anyone with West/Lexis access care to take a glance at the annotations on privilege and its limits? I ask, for reason that I have seen cases in which attorneys were sanctioned for advancing much less-frivolous arguments. We know that Wright is a liar. Why are his attorneys failing their duties as officers of the court, bound to represent their clients’ interests zealously but in a manner not inconsistent with their ethical duties? N.b. that the claim of privilege is a legal argument, not only a question of factual falsehood by Wright—that is an important distinction in this context. (And by the way, re “bunch of bankrupt or liquidated companies”, where are the pertinent court-appointed U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee(s)?) LOL, yes: Meanwhile, they are abysmally failing to even keep their fraudulently misnamed altcoin running on a technical level. Not that technical incompetence will much bother a project that anyway exists only to swinde: They only need to keep a coin sort-of almost approximately running, as a stage prop for a scam based primarily on psychological manipulation.
This quote sums up CSW's behavior perfectly. If he is Satoshi, why is he going to such extraordinarily extreme lengths to avoid having to sign a message or move some coins? Why is he trying so hard to hide the truth? Maybe, just maybe, because he is a pathological liar? ...a string of illogical twists by which he [Wright] claimed, in effect, that people who demanded a Satoshi signature from him were somehow violating his financial privacy (!). Vide:https://web.archive.org/web/20190228100312/https://medium.com/@craig_10243/careful-what-you-wish-for-c7c2f19e6c4fThere is a real problem with such a call from Core for me to sign. There are a number of downsides I will not discuss and a couple I will. You ask to see my keys; well, you are in effect asking to see my bank statement. Doing so is the opposite of what Bitcoin is about. I really do not care if you like that you cannot tell what I have or do not have. It is a form of information asymmetry that I desire to preserve. So, Craig Wright conflates signatures, public keys, and (by implication) private keys (!). Whereupon he, who in the same essay openly states his agenda to preserve the totally public nature of Bitcoin’s global ledger (which effectually puts everybody’s “bank statements” on the blockchain), argues that signing with a key associated with an already-public Satoshi UTXO would be tantamount to showing his bank statement (!!). This tangle of concepts is so nonsensical that it cannot but be presented for one purpose: If you can’t convince ’em, confuse ’em! “Dr.” Wright’s explanation will seem plausible to people who know absolutely nothing about public-key cryptography, and the application thereof in Bitcoin. And therein lies the rub: The overwhelming majority of living human beings know absolutely nothing about public-key cryptography, and the application thereof in Bitcoin.This is how Wright sneaks by the threshold question in the public mind, in furtherance of his grand-scale identity theft. Don’t let him get away with it!
|
|
|
|
PrefaceWhilst previewing this post, I realized that it came off as too negative. The Roosevelt gold seizure is a relatively recent historical precedent of a worst-case scenario. A discussion thereof perforce will invoke our worst fears of what could actually happen, because it has happened in an allegedly civilized country that claims to be “free”. A cold examination of reality is not only warranted, but necessary. However, it does sound too much like “gloom and doom”. To provide appropriate balance, I should thus add here up-top a bird’s-eye view of what can be done in the big picture: Not only to protect oneself individually against the potential of such a seizure, but to help make such a seizure less likely by raising the cost to governments. - Grow the Bitcoin social phenomenon. It is depressing to realize that Bitcoin adoption must surely still be a fraction of what individual gold ownership was in America in on 30 April, 1934. The more you push adoption to as many people in as many places as you can, the more difficult it becomes for any major government to try to ban Bitcoin.
- Keep privacy socially acceptable. If Bitcoin achieves mass-“adoption”, but 99% of users only “use” Bitcoin on some Paypal 2.0 centralized KYC exchange, then that achieves relatively little to protect Bitcoin from adverse state interference; indeed, it may actually damage Bitcoin. Get average people using reputable mixers (not the ones that smell like “darkweb”), and ultimately, get people onto Lightning. Explain privacy in terms that don’t look like the sleazy mirror-image of mass-media smears against privacy. (I myself am good for this: I don’t do drugs; I have never bought anything off the “darkweb”; I just want privacy, because it is my right to keep my money stuffed under my virtual mattress!)
Observe that this strategy has a unifying element: Helping people! If you want to best protect your own money, Bitcoin coerces you to make the world a better place: Protect others’ financial freedom, to build a mass-effect protecting your own financial freedom. I think that’s a feature. :-)
Technically, if you transfer crypto to the cold wallet, you can always "forget" access details to such a wallet. And good luck to anyone trying to brute force hack BTC cold wallet! ...cold storage is a great wallet to start if your hoarding lots on Bitcoin, and just keep a minimum amount on your online wallet for fast transaction, Well, you can be imprisoned and/or otherwise coerced to make you give up your cold wallet.  XKCD #538The only real, effective protection is privacy: Nobody can coerce you to give up what nobody knows you have. So unlike gold, I have a clear working plan if bitcoin gets banned. I can immediately send all my bitcoins into hiding using mixers. I can even sell them in disguise. Horse, barn door. — Cat, bag. — Methinks it’s time for a new metaphor. Nullian Rule of Privacy: Losing your privacy is like contracting HIV. It is irreparable—there is no going back—and it will ruin your life, even if you may take some measures to mitigate the damage and/or put off your demise. Sending your coins into mixers after a ban is way too late! Do you suppose that the government will just say, “Um, we can’t trace what happened to your coins; so, case closed!” In case of a ban (or tantamount to a ban: a legal requirement of registering all crypto assets with a KYC service), any coins that you can’t prove you sold to a KYC-traceable entity will probably get you in trouble, on the presumption that you are just trying to hide them. And before anybody says it: No, “plausible deniability” is not privacy.https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-January/015547.htmlI despise the term “plausible deniability”... I rather suspect the concept of “plausible deniability” of having been invented by a detective or agent provocateur. There are few concepts more useful for helping suspects shoot themselves in the foot, or frankly, for entrapping people. [...] --
nullius@nym.zone | PGP ECC: 0xC2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C
[...]
“‘If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.’
No! Because I do nothing wrong, I have nothing to show.” — nullius in this context means that nobody ever knew you had that Bitcoin. I myself take this to an extreme: Nobody IRL even knows that I am interested in Bitcoin! It is for their protection as much as mine. Well, that may be excessive—or maybe not, for you Americans: https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2019/07/the-irs-is-coming-for-your-gains-on-crypto-trading.html"I can't discuss specific investigative actions that the agency may or may not take in the future," Justin Cole, director of communication and education at IRS' criminal investigation unit told Coinbase.
But the investigative techniques outlined in the training are expansive. In order to find out if someone is trading in Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, agents could engage in some normal detective work, like "interviews, Open Source searches, and electronic surveillance." Or, they could just issue subpoenas to "Apple, Google, and Microsoft for the Subject's complete application download history," and determine what apps they use and whether they were engaged in bitcoin transactions. Translation: If they are suspicious that you may have secret Bitcoin, then they will grill your family, friends, and business associates (“interviews”), trawl your blogs, forum posts, and social media accounts (“Open Source” here means OSINT), tap your Internet connection and your phone (“electronic surveillance”), and even subpoena information on all the walled-garden app-store apps that you have ever downloaded, just to see if any of them may relate to crypto. This is what they do when Bitcoin is legal.Today in America. And what starts in America, comes tomorrow to your country. There is no joke.
I talked recently with a lawyer friend, who told me about the situation (about traders being chased by Romanian govern).
[...]
Max Nicula, the owner if the defunct BTCxChange stated recently that even today, 1.5 years after closing the exchange's site, he is unable to fully shut down the firm because ANAF (the Romanian version of IRS) started an investigation when he requested to close the operations. What is very important, he was requested to provide to the authorities all his customers names and data, which is also what happened at Coinbase. In that case, the company was requested forced to release the clients' data in order to function, while in this case the company has (still) to give out this data in order to be shut down.
[...]
What is important is that Coinbase history repeats and I suspect there are hundreds of other similar cases worlwide. Again, that’s what they do when Bitcoin is legal, and the government is just looking for a slice of your pie instead of seizing the whole thing! The historical precedent of the Roosevelt gold seizure invokes a threat model involving state-level actors, i.e., you need to hide your from your government any money that you would not willingly give up on demand. Thus, now—no, yesterday is the time to make sure that nobody can ever in the future trace it to you, or even suspect that you have it. Tips: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/PrivacyFor the 99% of people who will never even read that long wiki article, let alone do something about it, ChipMixer is a fast and easy way to at least help break up the publicly available money-trail that you are leaving all over the blockchain. I am not paid to say that; and I am warning you that it is only the beginning, not the end of achieving strong privacy.
The Effect of the Ban Never EndedBanned for more or less 41 years.. The substantial effect of the gold ban is still in full force. The government simply no longer needs to maintain a legal ban, when individual ownership of gold is restricted to only relatively few wealthy investors ( most of whom never take delivery—thus leaving possession, “nine-tenths of the law”, in control of banks), plus economically negligible amounts in the hands of socioeconomically and politically marginal goldbugs and “preppers”. Seriously. The system does not care if you and a few others have a few coins of an ounce or less. “Mission accomplished:” The American people have been bled of their gold; and via American economic and military dominance, so has the rest of the world. Observe that American domestic law made gold “legal” again a few years after Nixon unilaterally wrecked the Bretton Woods Agreement, thus effectually doing to foreign governments something roughly analogous to what Roosevelt had done to the American people. ( Hmmm...) As such was the United States Dollar fully transitioned into a fiat currency. At that point, from the U.S. government’s perspective—yeah, sure, ok, let some right-wing nut in Flyover Country stash a few little gold coins.* Whatever. He can keep them between the ARs which he thinks he can use to “defend freedom” militia-style against a régime that twice steamrolled the most powerful Arab military without even blinking, among other exemplary demonstrations of military superpower, and subsequently used Iraq as a testbed for new technologies in asymmetric “counterinsurgency”—hey! American “patriots”, did you notice that “your” military was busy perfecting unopposable “counterinsurgency” at exactly the same time as “your” domestic police forces suddenly became even more extremely militarized due to “post-911”? Hmmm? Anyway, sorry, a few bullion coins at the margins are meaningless in the big picture of the global financial system. (* I say this without disrespect to the people thus insulted; I am stating the USG perspective on it, and urging would-be American freedom-fighters to be strategically realistic. Don’t give up your AR, but don’t delude yourself into believing that this is 1774.)Call me when most of the American middle-class again has gold (or at least actually redeemable gold certificates), and when the gold-clause business contract terms legally invalidated by the Roosevelt gold ban are again a custom in American business—another extremely important point missed by most “goldbugs”. Personal money is small, except for the very wealthy. Business money is big. The customary use of gold in at least some significant fraction of business-to-business contractual payments was a lynchpin keeping the American domestic monetary system dependent on gold. Roosevelt nullified gold-payment contract clauses by operation of law, forcing business owners to accept paper instead.* Quick poll: How many on this thread even knew that, or thought about it? (* Such contractual clauses were made to explicitly override the legal-tender status of paper notes. It is perfectly legal to agree that a contract is only payable in gold bullion, or in bitcoins, or in chocolate-dipped coffee beans, or in bouquets of fresh roses. You are only required by law to accept legal tender for a debt if the counterparty has not already agreed to provide a different form of payment. Roosevelt not only trampled property rights, but also repudiated the right of contract to force business owners to accept paper dollars in lieu of the suddenly-illegal gold bullion that they had expected in payment when they signed their contracts.)And contra popular perceptions, the U.S. government never thereafter changed its underlying policy. The individual possession of gold bullion was only decriminalized after individual gold ownership had been made negligible, and a new generation had grown up being accustomed to this as the status quo. The marginal possession of a few ounces of gold by some insignificant number of people is just that: Marginal, and therefore irrelevant to pragmatic tyrants. The mass-draining of the American people’s gold, and the denormalization of gold ownership, are accomplished facts even truer today than they were in 1935.
The prime difference between now and then it that people and capital are infinitely more mobile. Speak for yourself. If the same were to be attempted today they would be able to go straight to my door. They would also find it empty as I'd be in the nearest country that wasn't pulling crap like that. That is not an option for people with: - Immovable assets, e.g., a home of one’s own.
- Family, most of all family with children.
- Deep ties to a local community—a thing once upon a time considered part of being a normal, decent human being.
- A non-cypherpunk job.
- Difficult-to-move assets, such as any non-negligible amount of gold. I am not only saying that gold is heavy: Good luck crossing the border with a 400 oz. Good Delivery bar in your carry-on! —Or family heirlooms. Or a personal library. Or...
- Issues of advanced age, ill health, or state of disability that make travel difficult or impossible—and/or family members who have such issues, such as parents/grandparents. (Cf. the above point about children.)
- The personal attachment to a certain location that is, again, a part of being a normal human being, and has led people throughout the ages to proclaim that “there is no place like home”.
“So what, you can run” is tantamount to declaring that freedom is only available to people who are willing to live on the run, like criminal fugitives—legally, as criminal fugitives. I myself already dislike hiding half my life behind Tor. Should I now prepare to live like a hunted animal!? A longtime Nullian aphorism: When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will have freedom.
I bet more than one American buried their gold and had to wait all these years before ever seeing it again. And there was probably a black market too... Of course, there was a gold black market; and there was gold smuggling, because gold bullion was “contraband” for anybody who did not have a special licence to handle gold for uses approved by the régime. But one of the most disturbing parts of this history is how willingly most Americans gave up their gold. In a misguided attempt to be extra-“law-abiding”, some people even turned in gold jewellery that was exempted from the ban. Of course, this was publicized for propaganda purposes. Cf. Voltaire’s famous observation about slaves who love their chains. Thus in a country founded by men who rose up in violent armed revolution against their legal government over some taxes that were quite small by today’s standards, masses of people voluntarily complied with the seizure of their real money, and its replacement with scrip as “payment” for the gold that they surrendered. Then, they promptly proceeded to re-elect the American Kerensky. An act of naked tyranny that would have been difficult to enforce against mass passive resistance, and by historical standards should have immediately incited active resistance,* was so smoothly carried off that it has been all but forgotten by Americans today—who, as aforementioned, still have economically negligible rates of individual gold ownership. (* I observe that the first-ever significant Federal legislation restricting firearms, the National Firearms Act of 1934, was passed almost simultaneously with the gold ban. Does no one else notice such things?)
(More replies some other time, especially to JollyGood and amishmanish. Thanks for the fine discussion of this important issue! I think it is not merely a story from the past, but a key issue of continuing relevance to Bitcoiners, and to anybody who cares about sound money and financial freedom. That is why I opened this topic when I was a forum Newbie who had been actively posting for less than nine days.)
|
|
|
|
If serious, what's need of vulgar language or high rank gives you some superiority, sir? shitnuggetgodamnforkingcraigwright, show some respect. TMAN’s style is so awe-inspiring that there is even a service to track his language for the benefit of the forum community: DidTMANsayAbadWord.tk! Usually, he charges good coin for his verbal abuse; but if you are very nice, then he may be so generous as to curse you out for free. (For my part, I do not use vulgarity. Sacrebleu.) |
|
|
|
Try me and my services
harem
best prostitute Vouch pass please Sir ! I give review , make A+++++++ feedback so you accout be shiny Green , send you some Merits if you send me too so we can both rank up and get best bounties . Thank You Sir !  |
|
|
|
I heard Wright replied he complying with the latest requests from the court because aliens impregnated him with his <s>courtier's</s>courier's goat-baby. ... or something like that?
Anyone have any details? A few days ago, I started preparing for this thread an analysis of some of Wright’s earlier public arguments*—including a string of illogical twists by which he claimed, in effect, that people who demanded a Satoshi signature from him were somehow violating his financial privacy (!). You may understand why I am sincerely confused about whether you are only being sarcastic, or I should really check the news.
(* To avoid the usual strategic mistake of point-by-point debunking of Wright’s claims beyond the unmet threshold question, I intend to narrow my analysis to (1) Wright’s nonsensical excuses for not meeting that threshold, and (2) Wright’s overt motive of turning Bitcoin into an instrument of financial mass-surveillance.)
I have intend a detailed reply to some of the earlier posts, including to JayJuanGee re “open source”. TL;DW version of a longer essay, intersecting with another subject that I have always sought an appropriate moment to write about: Copyright vs. Plagiarism vs. the Theft of an Author’s IdentityI would NOT proclaim that the identity theft angle is any kind of slam dunk... there can be some implied permission to attempt to steal the name and to copy whatever the fuck you like because the whole project is open source, including the name Satoshi Nakamoto...
Craig Wright takes this open source to another level... “Open source” is only a copyright issue. Whereas the confusion of plagiarism and copyright violation is a pet peeve of mine, one which I believe is deliberately promulgated by the copyright lobby. Even the Cypherpunks Public License embodies this confusion, for which reason I have always disliked it. For an extreme illustration of the difference in concepts: The complete works of William Shakespeare are in the public domain. You can legally copy them as much as you want, under any existing copyright law in the world. But if you claim Shakespeare’s work as your own, under the byline of your name, then you can and will be expelled from university, have your university degrees retroactively revoked, and/or be fired from any type of intellectual job. —And if you claim to be Shakespeare—not even the psychic reincarnation of Shakespeare, but William Shakespeare in the flesh!—then you should be committed to an asylum for the insane. To extend that confusion from authorship credit to the theft of an author’s identity does no one any good. Satoshi’s identity is a question of fact, not a legal question amenable to arguments over the licensing of copyrighted works. Wright’s theft of Satoshi’s identity is factually false, and legally fraudulent (easily hitting all five traditional elements of common-law fraud, and any reasonable statutory definition of fraud that I can imagine). The copyright status and licensing of Bitcoin’s source code is totally irrelevant—except insofar as Wright’s attempt to claim some IP rights over Bitcoin is predicated on his identity theft. |
|
|
|
These two are having fun trying to reinforce each other's accusations without actually substantiating anything. Who, me and Vod? What, you think we’re just buddies scratching each others’ backs? For the record, I have exchanged with Vod exactly one private communication between 2018 and the present: A terse PM that I sent notifying him of this thread, with my apology for my message being about this. (It felt rude and excessively self-centred, because I had not sent him a hello since I returned from my long absence.) My communications (or lack thereof) with Vod are none of anybody’s business; but I think I should anyway mention that, for reasons that will presently become clear. Unlike suchmoon, I did not subsequently attempt lobbying him. If Vod has stood by his tag, it must only be because, well, it’s his tag, and he made it for reasons that he deemed sound in the first instance. I supported, and continue to support his tag, because I believe it is correct: TECSHARE abuses the trust system. And my respect for Vod is only increased by the fact that he has stood by his own tag, when he could have easily thrown me under the bus to appease suchmoon. In terms that seem embarrassingly old-fashioned nowadays, he has principles! And if he refuses to delete a tag to avoid personal inconvenience, that indicates on the flipside that he does not issue tags for personal convenience, either: Regardless of whether or not one agrees with his standards, he applies his own standards impartially. Whereas my treatment of this thread changed in the moment that I realized, I am not the one on trial here.suchmoon has repeatedly evaded the unavoidable syllogism: If ~nullius, then ~Vod; if not ~Vod, then not ~nullius.Suddenly searching post hoc for other nullian tags she disagrees with shows that suchmoon started with her conclusion, ~nullius, and then worked backwards to find some means to rationalize it without opposing Vod. It also shows how petty she is. Dragging Lauda through the mud on this thread was irrelevant—actually, off-topic. suchmoon has been ~Lauda for a long time. ~nullius ~Lauda would at least be consistent—something that I could agree to disagree about, as long as it’s ~nullius ~Lauda ~Vod. No? Then leave Lauda out of it, just continue excluding her for whatever reasons or unreasons you had before, and exclude neither me nor Vod. Any discussion of Lauda’s tag thus is off-topic on this thread, as a moot point that need not be reached beyond the iron logic of the “if ~nullius, then ~Vod; if not ~Vod, then not ~nullius” syllogism. I focus on suchmoon, because in substantial essence, this is suchmoon’s thread against me straight from post #2. TECSHARE’s OP is meaningless junk laced with baseless claims that I am “an alt of one of the usual members”—just another mundane daily whine from some idiot, not worth my attention. I would have ignored TECSHARE, whom I regard as a troll. I would have ignored anybody who usually supports TECSHARE. I could not ignore suchmoon. But suchmoon is not alone in hypocrisy here: After so many pages of mostly nonsense, I must now also remark on how TECSHARE demonstrates his own hypocrisy by cheering as a big, bad DT1 plays favourites whilst beating up on the little guy. Ain’t that nice for you, TECSHARE? This is what you always claim occurs, even when it doesn’t! Now, it is actually occurring—and you think it’s just fine. Why don’t you ask suchmoon to stop playing favourites, and treat the “little guy” the same way she treats the awesome 5-digit uid forum legend who founded BPIP?
Actually I do like your true colors. A lot. I prefer honesty whether it's intentional or not. Well, about that... [Edit—correction: The following quoted post by DireWolfM14 was not directed at me. I misinterpreted it due to some unfortunate coincidences in the context.]http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5374/53741462.html(Immediately bookmarked by me in anticipation that it may disappear, as it did.)Hey cryptocunt, you try two hardy notttalky the inglich good. ...also, back atcha: I am passing judgment on you on this thread, suchmoon. Not vice versa. |
|
|
|
[~purported statistics presented to lead people down the garden path into arguing over an irrelevant point~] Hey, I have an astonishing idea that surely no one ever imagined before! Instead of this: - Argue out of both sides of your mouth to show that the Chip campaign is somehow anti-Turkish, and also show that the Chip campaign desperately needs Turkish people for Chip’s own good.
- Thereupon, insinuate the necessity of some sort of quota for Turkish users.
...why don’t you try this: - Come to the forum for the purpose of discussing Bitcoin, make good contributions to the community, enrich your mind and spirit by engaging and giving your time and effort to good people and good causes, and then accept it as a bonus if DarkStar_ decides that ChipMixer should be proud to have its banner displayed beneath all your excellent quality posts!
Many* of the best, most active members of this forum community have categorically refused to wear a paid signature ad of any kind. Some of those were eventually attracted to the ChipMixer campaign, because DarkStar_ built a reputation for rejecting bounty-chasers who don’t give a damn about the community. (* “Many” is not “all”. I observe this without any disrespect to some of the excellent forum contributors who see fit to advertise other campaigns they deem good, including some of my closest forum friends.)In the past (long before any of this controversy), I have privately spoken to some Chip advertisers who said that they chose Chip because they perceive it as the cleanest, most reputable campaign: They came to the forum because they are passionate about Bitcoin, and they want to engage with the community. The ChipMixer signature lets them afford to spend less time at their dayjobs, and more time doing what they love on the forum—without looking like a bounty-chasing sigspammer! That is a remarkable achievement by DarkStar_, and a win-win public benefit provided by ChipMixer’s generous budget for the campaign. Indeed, it is ChipMixer’s excellent reputation that has attracted me to advertise them for free, to make a point about the importance of supporting privacy. Now, let’s see what good you bring to the forum. On a thread created by a whackjob who has launched a defamatory smear of Chip because he believes that a “DT Chipmixer mafia” is hoarding all the “lucrative bounties” that he so covets, you have made some exemplary contributions to the community: Dishonorable worm and self admitted "lauda ass eating newt" ~nullius
lauda and her masochistic gimp
~Lauda is the worst thing that ever happened on this forum, a pure evil, dysfunctional, nasty wretch who would be quickly apprehended and locked up in either a jail or a mental institution in real life, has managed to terrorize and even build a fake "cult following" on the once leading crypto forum...
petty criminal ~Lauda and her ass licker ~nullius do your worst, you and your ass licking zombie newt buddy are finished here, real life police investigations into your parasitic terroristic lives should follow. Funny, that: Lauda so happens to wear a non-Chip advertisement; and I have thus far refused paid advertising altogether. But evidently, we must be the evil ringleaders of the ChipMixer Mafia. MUAHAHAHAHA! Anyway, as an outsider and a member of the public, I would be quite disappointed if your irrational thinking, low-quality vulgar writing, and raw greed as you hereby display were to be found consistent with the Chip ad’s reputation for being affixed to quality posts by caring members of the forum community. My unofficial advice as an outside observer is that if you want a slot in any campaign with high standards, then you should renounce signature ads altogether for awhile, focus on building a positive community in the Turkish local forum, write good-quality posts because you want to, and otherwise be motivated to engage with others here for some reason other than being paid for it. Who knows? Maybe DarkStar_ will notice that! Though the trick is, there will be nothing for him to notice if you’re just faking some good behaviour for the ulterior motive of getting his attention. Plenty of people contribute to this forum for sincere reasons; and I observe that they tend to be the ones who get Chip ad slots.
P.S., I am mildly curious about what “real life police” you are reporting me to. As I pointed out in the other thread, you had better report me to all the police in the whole wide world: You have no idea what country I am located in. :-) |
|
|
|
I don't know what the fuck is going on right now but I like it It just looks to me like Lauda being logical. Why risk damage to either of the two good outcomes she stated? If there is any bad new development in the future, eh—I do not think she is running short on red paint. With due apologies for being such a robot. * nullius hands TMAN another drink |
|
|
|
LOL, LOL, xolxolAlthough I do intend to respond to a few issues raised on this thread since my last post here, I have been meanwhile ignoring the topic (and mostly ignoring Reputation) due to ENOTIME for nonsense. This, however, is too funny for me to miss the moment: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221450.msg53759995#msg53759995
Quote from: TMAN on Today at 07:16:19 PM
>
>Quote from: xolxol on Today at 06:48:15 PM
>
>>The OLD nullius wont care about these people,something is fishy he might
>>not be the same person this new personality is like a cunt protecting
>>Lauda ang friends.
>
>PGP do you even know what that is you stupid little shitnugget
I agree that xolxol is a stupid little shitnugget, and doubly forking
stupid for somehow having missed in my history the numerous posts that
I made defending Lauda from twisted, illogical attacks in early 2018.
(Including attacks that have been retracted, with courteous apologies
that Lauda graciously accepted.)
SIGNED,
nullius
2020-02-02
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEARYKAB0WIQSNOMR84IlYpr/EF5vEJ5MVn575SQUCXjcrJwAKCRDEJ5MVn575
SeEpAQCpu8hU0PM/68YJWEuoNIW2STYysMQVOTyqSkv21MhgPwEArcy/slvJokFn
7n6Cj8AtiieGblRbVlSx8O7SdBMr3wc=
=LxyV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I included the quotation of today’s messages in my signed statement, for reasons similar to why Satoshi embedded a current news headline in the Genesis Block. Plus, lulz. Now, with my thus having easily passed the threshold with my widely-known PGP identity key... [N.b., it took me awhile to gather all the below quotes. Check the PGP signature timestamp on the above message to see when I started searching for all those classic Nullian posts which I remembered.]
I have also noticed significant discrepancies in speech patterns. Some of the original mannerisms (particularly in terms of text formatting) have been duplicated (or more accurately, exaggerated) but upon deeper inspection, discrepancies begin to emerge. Vague FUD. Setting aside “text formatting”, find me even one person on this forum who could duplicate my prose style, and you may have an argument. Find me one person in the world who could consistently mimic my ideas on a conceptual level, and you may have a case. I am the same Nietzsche- quoting, Bitcoin-worshipping, Lauda-loving, spam-hating, Cloudflare-distrusting curmudgeon always I was—with the same inimitable style, a personal characteristic which, by the way, I could not just switch off if I were to want a sock account like you’re using. ( N.b., none of the posts that I just linked were in Dev & Tech.) And I repeat: If my linguistic form would be difficult to simulate, could it be but impossible to fake my conceptual substance? What’s left is to secure yourself, take care of your own, live by honour alone whereas law is meaningless, keep busy with something productive, and try to have some fun. Mine is... the anarchy of those who love order, and impose order first on themselves: They who live by honour and not law. They must become laws unto themselves. [...] For those whose honour is pride and whose pride is self-honour, law is at best superfluous; and the law of the mob must be explicitly rejected. My wording was correct because I was making a prediction. I believe nullius has a more optimistic view of the future than I do.  To the contrary! You have it backwards. I wish I had just pushed through the post which comprises the first part above. I kept having to pause and go add replies to additional posts. This happens to me all too often. “Optimism is cowardice.” — Spengler (writing most of a hundred years ago)
To rule out the possibility of compromised or relinquished keys, I'm waiting to see how nullius performs in technical discussions. [...] Instead he is injecting himself into all manner of petty reputation disputes, which seems sort of beneath him. Did you fail also fail to notice my significant Meta/Reputation involvement in early 2018? Even before that, here are some excerpts from the first thread in which I sort of, almost, approximately crossed paths with Lauda in public. The thread was in Meta; and my anti-Btrash posts quoted below were my fourth and fifth posts, respectively (not counting an anti-Google CAPTCHA Meta post that mods apparently deleted as duplicative). From lurking, I already knew who Lauda was; but I doubt that she noticed me. At that point, as a Newbie who had been actively posting for less than 48 hours, I was just happy to incinerate the left-over pieces after the cat had gotten bored with tearing up Btashers. Anyone who intentionally tries to deceive newbies that an altcoin is Bitcoin just because it stole the "Bitcoin" name, is an untrustworthy and malicious entity that can't be trusted. Boldface mine:I would consider it if it became a widespread, spammy problem, but I don't think that many people are confusing Bitcoin with Bcash on this forum. If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust.
I consider the name "Bitcoin Cash" to be deceptive, but that's on the people behind it: I don't consider it deceptive/fraudulent for people to merely refer to that cryptocurrency as Bitcoin Cash. If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust.
I fully agree. So Bitcoin Cash is not alt coin.
It is a scam altcoin. So-called “Bitcoin Cash” is neither Bitcoin, nor cash, in the sense that it has neither the unlinkability nor the fungibility of cash. It and its ilk are also generically different from honest altcoins, which at least have the decency to make their own names. I don’t even know what to properly call it—other than a scam, of course; and anybody who does not realize it’s a scam must be one or more of ill-informed, malicious, or incurably stupid.
[...]
I hope that helps. As for myself, I am still having trouble deciding what I should call Roger Ver’s little abortion. Perhaps ASICBOOSTCOIN. Any better ideas? “We’re-not-engineers-don’t-know-much-about-scaling-and-don’t-care-Coin” is too long. I wouldn’t trust Roger Ver to distribute car wash tokens; Forking hell, I just realized that I somehow never yet red-tagged MemoryDealers! /* XXX TODO */ This is a special case: It will require a considerable effort to squeeze my judgment of Roger Ver into the new, absurdly low feedback length limits.
He seemed quite at home in Development & Technical Discussion originally, yet he has not made a single post there since returning to the forum a month ago. I do intend to return to Development & Technology, my first forum love ( n.b. that that was my ninth post on the forum, defending Segwit in D&T after the above-quoted Meta posts against Btrashers); but my plans, desires, choices, and the reasons therefor are really none of your business, just as long as my PGP key is the only one paying for my signature.
Exhibits Lest there be any doubt: Because my identity has been called into question on the basis of alleged discrepancies between my past and present posts, I will take the liberty of an extended review with quotes at length from just a few of past and present posts involving me and/or Lauda, which discuss unpopular ideas outside the technical forum. It is evidence against the accusation that I am not me—not that I particularly mind this walk down memory lane. ;-) Merited by Lauda (10)You need to read a lot of Nietzsche's writing[1] to understand why he thought the way that he did.
[...]
[1] It is also on my TODO list.
It’s good to see that some people still believe in reading books, rather than simply Googling for unfamiliar words: Let's fuck some weird Neitzschie foolishness in there as well, so that the easily-intimidated will back off in the face of your overpowering intellectualism. [...] and if you need any more pseudo-philosophical theories to throw around (with associated almost-german words), here's a link: https://www.pinterest.ie/fiveatheart59/philosophical-bullshit/ Have fun! I myself have not yet made it through all of his sixteen books. That takes awhile, together with comprehending the nineteenth-century social-historical context against which e.g. he prefaced The Will to Power, “What I am now going to relate is the history of the next two centuries. I shall describe what will happen, what must necessarily happen: the triumph of nihilism.” Also apropos hereof, with boldface supplied: I reduce a principle to a formula. Every naturalism in morality—that is, every healthy morality—is dominated by an instinct of life, some commandment of life is fulfilled by a determinate canon of “shalt” and “shalt not”; some inhibition and hostile element on the path of life is thus removed. Anti-natural morality—that is, almost every morality which has so far been taught, revered, and preached—turns, conversely, against the instincts of life: it is condemnation of these instincts, now secret, now outspoken and impudent. When it says, “God looks at the heart,” it says No to both the lowest and the highest desires of life, and posits God as the enemy of life. The saint in whom God delights is the ideal eunuch. Life has come to an end where the “kingdom of God” begins.
The thread diverged to the point where it could be split into a Politics and Society thread though.
I intended to do exactly that, yesterday, with my reply to johhnyUA. The greatest substance thereof was written immediately; but I decided to gather some supporting pictures, so as to aid comprehension by those who don’t read. Will do, and link from here. P.S.— If nature have no pity on the degenerate, it is not therefore immoral: the growth of physiological and moral evils in the human race, is rather the result of morbid and unnatural morality. The sensitiveness of the majority of men is both morbid and unnatural. Why is it that mankind is corrupt in a moral and physiological respect? The body degenerates if one organ is unsound. The right of altruism cannot be traced to physiology, neither can the right to help and to the equality of fate: these are all premiums for degenerates and failures. There can be no solidarity in a society containing unfruitful, unproductive, and destructive members, who, by the bye, are bound to have offspring even more degenerate than they are themselves.
Edit, P.P.S.—I missed this on an initial skim over foolishness: I guess this is what happens when Randian and Rothbardian ideas are overwhelmingly pushed as dogma without discourse.
I was waiting for some thoughtless nitwit to accuse me of following the pseudointellectual pretender known as “Ayn Rand”. No, I do not. I pass that judgment after having read all of her published works, and then regretting the waste of my time. I’ve never read Rothbard. Thus, I can’t very well be advocating for his ideas, much less pushing them as “dogma”. Once upon a time, I seduced a beauteous lady of arts and letters with a running erotic joke about commas, interspersed with intercourse on Byron. Thence ensued a story more appropriate for /r/GirlsGoneBitcoin than here, wherein she confirmed my reputation as “mad, bad, and dangerous to know”. Thus, I do understand why you’re jealous of my way with words; you should be.
Discourse, you fucking cretin, DISCOURSE. Do you seriously think that response had anything useful in it? A little "intercourse" (DISCOURSE YOU PRICK) about your own stats?
I enjoy being hypercorrected by pretentious morons who neither grasp (not-so-)subtle double entendre, nor even know the definitions of basic English words: intercoursenoun 1. dealings or communication between individuals, groups, countries, etc. 2. interchange of thoughts, feelings, etc.3. sexual relations or a sexual coupling, especially coitus. (Aside: The sense of sexual coupling is actually a euphemism; the denotations of “dealings, communication; interchange of thoughts” are original. Source: My own knowledge of etymology. Go get your own education, you degenerate anti-intellectual.) (with associated almost-german words)
Actually, it is German. Per the mighty Duden: Sklavenmoral, die
Wortart: Substantiv, feminin
Gebrauch: Philosophie
[...]
Herkunft
nach dem deutschen Philosophen F. Nietzsche (1844–1900)
Let's fuck some weird Neitzschie foolishness in there as well, so that the easily-intimidated will back off in the face of your overpowering intellectualism.
The correct spelling is “Nietzsche”. And what did I say about the vulgarity meter? It shows that I hit where it hurts: Directly upon your own sense of jealous inferiority. The Sklavenmoral does suit you, after all. No wonder you are such a zealot for empathy. You need it, and also its incestuous twin: Pity. [...] The foregoing is merely the application of a principle which grade-α philologist Nietzsche had laid when he wooed Truth’s virgin sister, Wisdom, in his previous book, Also sprach Zarathustra:Muthig, unbekümmert, spöttisch, gewaltthätig — so will uns die Weisheit: sie ist ein Weib und liebt immer nur einen Kriegsmann.
[‘Courageous, unconcerned, scornful, coercive—so wisdom wisheth us; she is a woman, and ever loveth only a warrior.’] Athena Pallas: Virgin goddess of War and WisdomNietzsche: She and her sister Truth have rejected the advances of the philosophers philosophasters. Photo: Jürgen Howaldt The great truths of this world are oft concealed in the twisting of language. A warrior-philologist is armed with the sword to slice through this Gordian knot; and in the famous Beyond Good and Evil aphorism that later gave the starting point for his Zur Genealogie der Moral, Nietzsche discovered two separate moral dichotomies: - The dichotomy between “good” and “bad” (“gut” and “schlecht”) in the sense of “noble” versus “despicable”; this, he termed the Master-Morality (Herren-Moral), which he exemplified in the self-glorifying pride of ancient aristocrats: “...it is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are untruthful. ‘We truthful ones’ [‘Wir Wahrhaftigen’] the nobility in ancient Greece called themselves.” I observe that whereas the Homeric heroes may merrily invade Troy, seize its treasures and women, and burn it to the ground, they would never scam you. Scamming would be despicable, schlecht, bad. (Cf. Zur Genealogie der Moral, pp. 21–22.)
- The dichotomy between “good” and “evil” (“gut” and “böse”) in the sense of “sympathetic” versus “dangerous”, which he termed the Slave-Morality (Sklaven-Moral). It is the morality of resentment by persons of inferior quality, by which they demand that those stronger than themselves must abandon their strength for humility. In Bitcoin Forum terms, it is the morality of those who demand empathy for “please Sir give merits or my whole family will starve to death” types—or those who are so enraged about being denied “lucrative bounties” that they develop paranoid ideations about a “DT Chipmixer mafia”.
He further observes that “good” in the Master-Morality is “evil” in the Slave-Morality, and “good” in the Slave-Morality is “bad” in the Master-Morality ( e.g., liberals and Christians). In my own words, the former is a morality of pride, and the latter is a morality of utility: A morality of ability serving needs, thus that “the meek shall inherit the earth”. Empathy is a weakness. All it does is cloud your judgement, thus severely impacting your ability to think rationally.
I'm actually hating that this thread is still going. But that's my issue. I've quoted a post by a person I don't like much. This isn't secret. Shame on you for cherry-picking a quote, and leveraging that to take a holier-than-thou attitude toward someone who has freely given extraordinary amounts of time to helping newbies, squashing predatory scammers, and fighting spam. I don’t wonder why your reply picked on that, instead of this: ...I won't forget that he took on his own time to help with empathy someone he didn't know.
I have helped thousands of users here over the years, and felt no empathy towards any case. You do not need empathy to help someone. You were saying? I am also unsurprised that you argued with one line out of a discussion, whilst conveniently avoiding all I said in my own far more detailed substantive response. Disgusting attitude.
Yours is. Moreover, the whole notion of “empathy” is disgusting. It is nothing more than an emotional blank cheque demanded by the weak and incompetent on those who are not so. It is the distilled essence of the Sklavenmoral. But as all such things, it is a poison which acts only against those who choose to drink it. Repudiate the concept, and it is as powerless as its preachers. Reflecting on the foregoing quoted posts, I must remark that Lauda is one of the most sincerely caring people whom I have ever had the privilege of knowing. But from what I have seen, she reserves that caring for those whom she judges to be good and do good, to the exclusion of those whom she judges to be bad and do bad. Thus, doing bad things and then self-righteously whining about “empathy” will indeed get short shrift from her. Amidst the resultant shrieks, few care to notice the exquisite devotion with which she expends boundless energy doing thankless chores for causes she deems noble, and for people she deems good. If more people had such wise judgment, the world would be a better place. I have helped thousands of users here over the years, and felt no empathy towards any case. You do not need empathy to help someone. You were saying? I attest that she has helped me—gratuitously so, with zero expectation of any reward or even thanks. Whereas if she were to insult me with “empathy” ( i.e., pity), I would tag her bleeding red!
Original Nullian ThinkingCould anyone else have written this exactly as I did? Am I mistaken? Look around you! Look with open eyes, an iron heart, and a freethinking mind which ruthlessly questions all unexamined premises it has been told are categorically unquestionable. [...] Sheep can no more be taught to think than dogs can be taught to sing opera.[...] Wherefore “anarchy” as to the masses and their so-called “governments”, which are in truth no more than the largest, most well-armed organized criminal gangs. Don’t reject authority: Be your own authority.
My 1000th post. Quotable. Original. Nullian.
|
|
|
|
And the name of Anastasia and her photographs in this article are designed to cause tears and violent emotions in readers.
This whole article is cheap PR and a game with the name of Anastasia.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But I don’t like it when someone uses other people's emotions. This is like bringing a sword to a gunfight—whilst claiming that swords are “honourable” weapons, and you refuse to weapons requiring less strength and skill for a duel. Yes, my argument is emotionally evocative—intentionally so, for the good reasons explained below. Whereas foremost here, I must address my own motives and thought process. I am a dispassionate thinker, and a passionate writer. I think through my arguments with cold objectivity, then open a blank page to express how I feel about the conclusions which sound reason has already commanded. And far from being “cheap PR and a game with the name of Anastasia” as you allege, my essay is a Bitcoiner’s offering of a little homage to Anastasia’s memory. For the history of Anastasia is an issue that I actually care about—both as an issue in itself, and insofar as I regard Anastasia as symbolic of the many millions of innocent victims of Communist mass-murder. I did not simply pick her name out of a hat, or cast about for some convenient source of emotional impact. I hereby have sincerely expressed my high respect for each of Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova, whom I am proud to memorialize by her proper title in OP, and Satoshi Nakamoto, the ingenious founder of Bitcoin. I have also imposed on this thread a moderation rule requiring that replies must “be kind to Anastasia, and honest toward Satoshi”. That is what I call a “win-win”, insofar as it is the intersection of the stories of two famous historical personages whom I remember for different reasons. People must remember what happened to Anastasia, remember why it happened, remember how the injustice of her murder was compounded by the insult of identity theft intended to steal her memory and swindle her surviving relatives—and must stop the analogous identity theft of a famous person in the case of Satoshi. Of course, the respective circumstances of these two persons are very different and not comparable. However, Anastasia was royalty; and I do not think she would have objected to the wisdom of applying her own story to teach lessons for the greater good, as the names of the most famous royalty have always been spun into fables long after their deaths. Yes, I thought through all of this before writing my essay; and I asked myself, would a Grand Duchess want other than to let her name be a banner of justice to stop criminals from scamming for money, stealing power, and attacking a noble cause? My biographical reading on the Romanov daughters’ graceful personalities leaves me no doubt. Although I can have no definite answer from one who has been dead for over a century, I wrote my essay with not only a clear conscience, but even a positive conviction that Anastasia would be pleased. I do not understand what is new we have learned in this article. Then, you missed the point. After having rethought the matter from first principles, I introduced in OP my own original thinking on how best to describe the Faketoshi scam. I have never before seen anybody call it identity theft—whereas that is what it is, by definition! Thus have I developed a new way to instantly explain the central issue to the average person, in terms familiar to the public consciousness. Everybody knows what identity theft is, and everybody knows it’s bad. Now, why has nobody else seen this as identity theft? Perhaps that is because the term is usually applied only to much smaller cases. A mundane, garden-variety identity thief steals an identity to open and drain new credit cards in your name, or to commit a similar crime orders of magnitude smaller than the Faketoshi scam. As a new symbolic archetype for grand-scale identity theft, I chose the famous case of Grand Duchess Anastasia. I thereupon applied this symbol to communicate what the Wright scam really does to Satoshi. When Craig Wright is properly labelled in the public consciousness as a perpetrator of grand-scale identity theft, please remember properly to credit nullius for the idea. You could just call it: Craig Wright is a liar.
But then no one will read this article. Exactly: But then no one will read this article.If you insist on making arguments that only use facts and logic, then I suggest that you should join one of the many online discussions wherein hardcore Bitcoiners refute Wright’s lies point by point. But please, do not tell others to use that form of argument for communications with the general public! Self-defeating principles are ipso facto wrong principles. If your principles make you assist your own defeat at the hands of those whom you say are “wrong”, then you are wrong, too: You are passively fighting for the “wrong” which you condemn. If you bring a sword to a gunfight, then your “honour” and all your principles will die with you. If you insist on defending Bitcoin with only facts and logic, then you will confine Bitcoin advocacy to a few obscure forums inhabited mostly by crypto-coders and technology enthusiasts with robot-logic. Thus will you surrender Bitcoin to those whose weapons are only emotional and psychological manipulation—unavoidably, to such swindlers as Craig Wright. Observe that with no facts on his side, and with no logic on his side, he successfully persuades many people who do not think through facts and logic. I assure you that the emotional impact of my Anastasia essay was fully, consciously intended—and moreover, intended to be exemplary: This is how it’s done, folks! If you want to defeat the psychological support on which Craig Wright builds his hollow lies, then find ways to wrap true facts and sound logic in an emotionally evocative form of argument, delivered with a rhetorical eloquence measured according to the audience. (On that last point, observe that OP was authored with much simpler language than this explanation, kept short, and bracketed by pictures.) Then, you will have the winning combination that Faketoshi lacks: The facts and logic that he lacks, plus a potent weapon against his manipulation of people who neither verify facts, nor coldly reason from premises to conclusions. Under the weight of your logical iron core wrapped in passions, Faketoshi will implode as an empty shell. Wherefore I encourage others to spread the Anastasia Bitcoin message to other venues of discussion, and also to create similar forms of argument upon the principles that I have hereby set forth. |
|
|
|
Announcement: Project Anastasia has been translated to Биткоинеры против кражи личности [re: Craig Wright Scam]. Спасибо, taikuri13!
I agree on uniting and calling out liars, but such characters as Craig Wright don't even deserve the attention. Nobody in his right mind would believe this lune. esp after hearing his arguments. He lied to the judge, that's when he should really get punished for his claims @owlcatz Umm Cuz you don't feed the trolls? This is an important point. For years, I ignored Craig Wright! I saw him not only as a despicable scammer, but also as a clown and a dumb troll who should be starved of the attention he so craves. Anyway, I had better things to do. Then, I saw this post by Greg Maxwell, which I will hereby quote fully (with my addition of boldface and bracketed material) because it is so important: On one hand I agree that threads related to him [Craig Wright] tend heavily to off-topic.
On the other hand, a big part of the reason that he's caused so much disruption (and he truly has)-- is because so many bitcoiners took one look at him, saw how transparently fake he was, and decided it was best to ignore him. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. And that is what has happened here--
It's easy for him to spin the people who do speak out against his fraud as somehow being involved with some kind of personal play against him because as a community we haven't stood united against his fraud. Instead, far too many have just responded like "Good thing I'm not ignorant enough to fall for that, better stay away so I don't get targeted with drama too."
In the future we're going to see more crap like him threatening any business that accepts Bitcoin with patent litigation, to which the common response will be "damn, this bitcoin stuff isn't worth the trouble" from most parties who's business isn't primarily about Bitcoin. How could you expect otherwise when your response to wright is "damn, this wright stuff isn't worth the trouble"?
Because his lies are so prolific and layered in every one of these threads there are some newer bitcoiners that end up being corrected and put on a more sensible path. It isn't always a question of people believing him outright, often its falling for one of his lesser lies like the claim that he's an "og bitcoin investor" or that kleiman had something to do with Bitcoin's creation.
The Wright threads also make it really easy to identify many idiots and shills. I think we're all made better off by having access to such a quick classifier of the character of our fellow posters.
If someone broke into your house and was stealing stuff-- you wouldn't just say 'that thief doesn't deserve our attention' and ignore them. We shouldn't hesitate to defend Bitcoin and the community surrounding it.
People do, for the most part, ignore people that caused trouble in the past but aren't anymore. You hear about wright because his scams are ongoing and still growing.
Now-- if you want to argue that various threads aren't very effective and that the community could do better? I couldn't agree more. For opening my eyes to how my own inaction was passively permitting attacks on Bitcoin, I gave +20 for that post (whereas I need to earn that—I am not a merit source). Then, I took the advice that “the community could do better”: A community is made of people, I am a person—so I decided to lead by example, starting with two topics showing the types of discussion that I hope others will join me in carrying forward, far, and wide into many languages and many venues of discussion: - Bitcoin: The Social Phenomenon, a positive essay to explain why my motto is, “There is only one Bitcoin”, and invite community discussion thereupon. This was an essay that I had in mind for a long time, and just never took the time to write. I list it first, although it was actually posted after Anastasia, because I think it is important to keep this principle: Always say what you are, before you say what you are against. A positive message for the good must then be protected by a negative message against the bad; whereas a negative message is nothing, in itself. (Russian translation by taikuri13; more languages coming soon!)
- Project Anastasia, to label Craig Wright properly with a term that exactly describes his fraud, and immediately tells the average person exactly what he is doing: Identity theft! (Anastasia in Russian; more languages coming soon!)
In the long term, these two will only be the beginning of a series of pro-Bitcoin essays that engage the community in a renewed focus on what makes Bitcoin great, whilst also striking down the lies and scams of those who attack Bitcoin ( and thus, attack your money). I always work slowly, but I am a patient man; and I have started my Bitcoin advocacy with the intent of growing it to have a long-term large effect, not of making a drama splash and then getting bored. Bitcoin is worth love, it is worth working for— and it is worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
I am sincerely puzzled. Would somebody please help me figure out just what Vispilio was trollishly ranting about in my self-moderated Nietzsche thread, which explicitly bans “Vispilio and his cronies” as a local rule? ( Deleted.) http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5374/53742228.htmlI see this tiny dishonorable mosquito is still buzzing around, gossiping behind my back like an abandoned bitter spinster, a full week after I obliterated his low skill, low intellect, completely inconsequential and above all dishonorably criminal existence on this forum: a fair caution to all forum participants on why you should ~nullius immediately for the well being of this forum, and completely disregard any of this envious imbecile's inferiority-complex ridden, laughably twisted and corrupted babble on geniuses like Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky and my humble Self :  this is the final warning I'm giving to nullius the abominable zombie frog, cease and desist your criminally motivated defamation activities against me, or the long arm of the law might deem it suddenly worth their while to extract even a totally irrelevant pariah pest like you... ps. sincerely, check into rehab, and I hope you get much better. I infer that this “humble genius” does not know how to turn on DT view, where I am still DT light-green +3 / =2 / -0 ( DT view of profile), and Vispilio’s tags are still DT “untrusted feedback”. And as he may not realize, Vispilio himself is still DT +0 / =1 / -3 ( DT view of profile). As of Loyce’s latest scrape: “ Vispilio ( Trust: +0 / =1 / -3) ( DT1 (-2)” Having figured out that piece of the puzzle myself, my question for y’all is just why he imagines that “the long arm of the law” would be interested in this matter. What crimes have I allegedly committed? That actually makes me curious—and much moreso than the question of how he expects for his imaginary policemen to find a crypto-anarchist behind Tor. (Easy guess: Cryptanalysis using imaginary numbers!) Any interesting theories? This is not merely for the sake of amusement: It is a scientifically fascinating case study in psychopathology; and moreover, I am curious to know just what idiotic reports some overworked policemen will be promptly roundfiling. For indeed, based on my experience with net-abuse rough-and-tumble, I expect that Vispilio may actually try to report me to every police agency he can find. I do suggest that he should report me to every police agency in the whole world, since he has no idea what country I am in. I am nullius, of nobody, a nym in cypherspace; I am nowhere, I am everywhere, I am everybody! And since the world revolves around Vispilio, I must hide where he least expects me. Why, for all he knows, I could be secretly living in Turkey, just down the street from him— watching him. For I may be a downfallen descendant of the last Ottoman Sultan, plotting to rebuild the Empire that is my birthright; Lauda and the DT Chipmixer mafia are all only my Janissaries, sent to oppress Vispilio and his comrades on the Bitcoin Forum. Stupid Vispilio never considers that I may just be pretending that I am not Turkish, so as to better conceal my key rôle in the vast anti-Vispilio conspiracy. Shh ses yapma... Vispilio’ya Türk forumunda alt hesabım olduğunu söylemeyin sakın. ;-) |
|
|
|
My due apologies to the community for my having fallen behind on this thread. Some recent “attacks” on me sapped the limited forum time which IRL considerations have permitted to me in the past few days. I see that others have said most of what I would have, anyway—mostly by eddie13 and Lauda. Funny thing, that! At this point, for the reasons with which I conclude below, I think that only a few collateral points remain to be addressed—foremost, yahoo’s aspersions cast on the motives for this thread, which seem almost designed to deter others from making honest assessments of such behaviour in the future. I wasn't going to respond in this thread at first due to the nature of the thread being basically an attack and some attacks require no response. I am not sure how you could be so mistaken, when I opened with the following statement in OP: I have no quarrel with yahoo, and I don’t want one. If you disbelieve that, consider: - My sole interest in this topic was and is to call on the community to enforce the highest standards for the most-trusted people. Consistently with all I said in my OP and followup, if I had mass-tagged Yobit advertisers, I would have started by tagging yahoo62278 first as a matter of principle. Nobody should get special treatment in such matters.
It’s hard to miss my own statement of my intentions in OP, which was written at a time when I was preparing imminently to mass-tag numerous ordinary users:
yahoo62278 cannot expect special treatment. Indeed, such a highly respected forum member must be held to the highest standards. - Although involvement in a competing signature campaign should never disqualify anybody from speaking the truth from sound reason, I am ideally suited to approach such an issue judiciously; for I have no financial interest in any signature campaign. I have never worn a paid signature. I have no current or foreseeable future intent to wear a paid signature. And for those who may be wondering: I even explicitly disclaimed interest in a Chip slot to DarkStar_. (I reached out to him, not vice versa—just to let him know that I am genuinely doing that unpaid signature thing to promote privacy, and not as a ploy to inveigle my way into his campaign.)
- My action in this matter was solely at my own initiative, and neither requested nor suggested by anybody else. No, not even Lauda.
Everyone wants to form a lynch mob at Laudas request, feel free.
That is unfair both to me, and to Lauda. Lauda did not ask me to create this thread—and in fact, it was Lauda who first asked me to lock it as moot a few days ago. (It is a suggestion that I did not immediately take, only because unreasonable distractions diverted my attention whilst IRL matters have left me little forum time.) And though you don’t know me, I surmise that you should probably know Lauda better than to deal her such calumny:
I know Yahoo better than 99% of you, and the answer is absolutely yes (and this comes from somebody who at our last interaction still considered him a friend - note: nothing changed since other than no direct conversing/split paths).
As for me, and my habit of principled independent, I am the last one to join any of the lynch mobs which Lauda has no interest in forming:
You know that I am a loose cannon, even moreso than Lauda.
Then when I woke up today and logged in I started seeing an agenda of sorts being pushed, What agenda, praytell? If you are accusing me of having any ulterior motive in creating this thread, it would only be fair for you to plainly state what you think it is. I did not make vague insinuations about you, yahoo. I forthrightly stated what I thought you were doing wrong. Please be likewise fair.
[url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134119.msg50692188#msg50692188]This thread was made way back in April of last year [2019] where I asked for community input on a PM I had received regarding managing Yobits campaign. Notice the words used here YOBITS CAMPAIGN. There was no mention of cryptotalk because the forum had not existed yet. So all the members (20+) who said a manager is better then no manager should walk away from this discussion and move on. You spoke your piece in that thread. Now let's fast forward to September 2019... Then, fast forward to December 24th 2019... That line of argument may apply to some others; whereas I, who started this topic, was off the forum from April 2018 to January 2020: Not posting, not lurking, gone. Others have already answered, for their parts, with some more or less different views of the events you describe. I will now speak for myself: You spoke your piece in that thread. I didn’t. Although, of course, it is impossible to prove what I would have done, anybody who knows me will know that I would have argued against the yahoo-plus-Yobit proposition vehemently in the thread you cite. I have some modicum of experience at spamfighting, going back to Usenet in the 90s (n.a.n.a.e., etc.).* I hate spam, I know the devious ways of spammers, and I would never have accepted the argument that it’s better to let a spammer advertise under the “control” of a reputable manager than to ban the spammer, period. It is an argument which would have been incinerated with extreme prejudice on n.a.n.a.e., too. If some others supported your management of the Yobit campaign, yahoo62278, then yes: There is some responsibility to be shared for the later results. However, joint responsibility does not absolve you of personal responsibility. Not in the first instance—and especially not after the point when it became clear that Yobit was scamming with Ponzis, etc. (* Aside, a part of what first drew me toward Lauda is that she reminds me of some of the toughest n.a.n.a.e. regulars. That was a rough world full of revenge-doxing by spammers, spammers’ death threats, frivolous lawsuit threats, bizarrely stupid smear tactics, etc., plus a constant stream of b.s. excuses and fallacious arguments about a “free speech” right to mass-defecate in your inbox. I recall one post by n.a.n.a.e. legendary Vernon Schryver who, after a spammer threatened to murder him, casually mentioned some means by which unwelcome visitors could be made to disappear into the acreage at his home in Colorado. I think he said something about chainsaws, and maybe about his access to a backhoe... There is nothing new here—actually, this forum is relatively tame.)
Others have otherwise adequately addressed the substance of yahoo’s statement.
Once again, ME pointing out this case of hypocrisy in this Yobit campaign is what lead to this thread, and possibly their closing up shop here.. Wrong. My creation of this thread had nothing to do with you; if I saw any of your posts when I reviewed all the Yobit threads, I don’t remember them. The Yobit-related posts which stood out to me personally were by o_e_l_e_o (whose posts on X10/Investbox first brought my attention to this issue), JollyGood, Lauda, and a few others. You have made some excellent posts in this thread; and if you have been pushing the same issue, I applaud you for that. Now, please don’t try to take credit for my independent decision that I should dare to damn the consequences, stand up, and say, This is a yahoo issue before it is an issue of all the people following his lead, who must then be duly dealt with.(And it worked, if I do say so myself.) You're all welcome for my fine community services of questioning hypocrisy at great risk to my own reputation to keep DT straight. Hey, “you’re welcome” for mine. (And look at my reputation now: I just noticed that suchmoon almost simultaneously opposed me in this thread and in TECSHARE’s thread against me, after never having had any significant conflict with me before. Do you think that’s right, eddie?)
The foregoing needed to be said; and the past five pages hold much discussion that I should wish to reply to. However, I agree with this— all of it, eddie13 as well as Lauda: @Lauda @nullius
The campaign is over.. It's been shut down..
All of this fuss has been a fair warning to not advertise scams or facilitate the advertisement of scams..
I think it should be let go for now, with no tags, but not next time..
I'm fine with that as an ending resolution, but you and I both know that there's no "not next time" but "it depends who manages and is recruited in the next one". The same as it was with this one. I don't see much support for a "not next time". Was the money worth it to dishonor yourself so?
The end. I am hereby locking this thread on grounds of “mission accomplished”. If anybody has anything important to say specifically on the topic of “yahoo62278 and Yobit”, please PM me a request for a temporary unlock. In particular, if yahoo wants to reply to what I have said above, then it would be unfair of me to just take the last word. But barring any new developments, I have no desire to carry this thread further. The topic title is “yahoo62278 and Yobit”—whereas yahoo62278 is neither managing nor advertising Yobit right now. And as I said one week ago: Though I would not be deterred by the inevitability of drama, I don’t want the drama—and if I did, Faketoshi has more of it anyway, with the added “benefit” of being so much slimier and more disgusting. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
